Who'd a thunk it?

[Mark A. Mandel]

old thread...

>>>>>>>>>>>
Date:    Fri, 1 Jul 2005 16:22:18 -0400
From:    sagehen <sagehen at WESTELCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: Who'd a thunk it?

>On Jun 29, 2005, at 11:22 PM, Wilson Gray wrote:
>
>> FWIW, I think that "supposably" sounds "ignunt." But I've been in love
>> with "hopefully" from the day that we met. I've never understood why
>> some people wish to argue against its use. In fact, I've never even
>> understood the points of those arguments. Different strokes for
>> different folks, to coin a phrase.
>
>not very surprising.  for "supposably" there already is a one-word
>equivalent ("supposedly"), but there is no such equivalent for
>"hopefully".  so "hopefully" is really useful in a way that
>"supposably" is not.
>
>arnold
~~~~~~~~~~
Yeah, but........"I hope,"  "we hope,"  "one hopes" are all SHORTER than
"hopefully" and "it is hoped" is no longer!
Still squirming uncomfortably here in the corner,
AM
<<<<<<<<<<<

Yeah, but syntactically "X hope[s]" has to be fitted in as an extra clause.

Ditto "it is hoped", which is furthermore hopelessly formal for most users'
spoken registers, as is "one hopes".

And "hopefully" fits right in, in form and placement and syntax, with other
sentence adverbs like
        maybe
        probably
        possibly
        inevitably



mark by hand